Topics

Industries

Tags

VANCOUVER — British Columbia is not trying to stop the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, but it is attempting to prevent environmental damage and hold the corporation responsible for the cleanup of a spill, a lawyer argued March 18.

The province’s Court of Appeal is considering a reference case filed by BC that asks if it has jurisdiction to regulate the transport of oil through its territory and restrict bitumen shipments from Alberta.

Joseph Arvay, who represents BC, said the province has no “axe to grind” against pipelines and proposed amendments to its Environmental Management Act are not aimed at blocking the project.

“The purpose was never to prevent the construction or operation of the pipeline. The purpose and effect was always to protect the environment,” he told a panel of five judges.

The case asks the court to rule on the constitutional validity of the proposed amendments, which would require companies transporting hazardous substances through BC to obtain provincial permits.

The proposed permitting regime would order companies to provide disaster response plans and agree to compensate the province, municipalities and First Nations for any damages. If companies fail to comply with requirements, the province could suspend or cancel the permit.

A five-day hearing began Monday and the Canadian government has not yet had an opportunity to present its arguments. It says in court documents that the proposed regime must be struck down because it gives BC a “veto” over inter-provincial projects.

Both Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Alberta Premier Rachel Notley have said Ottawa – not the provinces – has the authority to regulate trans-boundary pipelines.

Alberta, Saskatchewan, Trans Mountain Corp. and the Canadian Railway Association are among 13 parties that have filed documents in support of the federal government in the case.

Arvay acknowledged that BC Premier John Horgan said on the campaign trail in 2017, when his party was in opposition, that he would use “every tool in the toolbox” to stop the Trans Mountain expansion.

However, after Horgan’s government took power, it received legal advice that it was constitutionally unable to stop the project but it could bring in environmental legislation, Arvay said.

Under questioning from the Appeal Court judges, Arvay acknowledged that the proposed permitting system could lead to a situation where the Trans Mountain pipeline would not be allowed to operate.

“But that’s really in the hands of the pipeline,” he said, adding the corporation would be responsible for ensuring it meets the permit conditions.

“That’s as it should be. The Constitution shouldn’t provide the inter-provincial undertaking … an immunity from such lawful regulation.”

Justice Harvey Groberman challenged Arvay’s assertion that BC must be able to enact laws to protect its environment from trans-boundary projects in case the federal government fails to do so.

If the federal government didn’t regulate airplanes, for example, that could result in a disaster in the province’s airspace, Groberman noted.

“But that doesn’t mean BC has power,” he said. “We assume the federal government is acting in the public interest. … That’s just the nature of divided jurisdiction.”

Arvay outlined a number of cases that he said have established legal precedent for BC to impose environmental laws on trans-boundary projects.

One such case was in 1899, when a court held that provinces and municipalities could require the Canadian Pacific Railway to keep ditches alongside its tracks clear of dirt and rubbish to prevent damage to adjacent properties, he said.

However, Justice Lauri Ann Fenlon said the ruling didn’t necessarily prevent the railway from operating if it failed to keep the ditches clear – unlike BC’s proposed legislation.

The federal government has purchased the Trans Mountain pipeline for $4.5 billion. The expansion would triple the capacity of the line from the Edmonton area to Burnaby, BC, and increase tanker traffic in Burrard Inlet seven-fold.

Arvay said a spill of diluted bitumen in BC would be disastrous. The National Energy Board heard differing opinions about the likelihood of a spill, but BC has the right to take precautions, he said.

So its all about the environment and killer whales. Then explain how Vancouver and Victoria are able to dump their raw sewage untreated into the very waters they profess to protect for killer whales. How does the BC government square the expansion of ferry operations or expanded traffic for natural gas or even the intrusive whale watching industry. Doesn’t the same argument stand against their own projects of profit? Selective environmental stewardship on inter provincial projects doesn’t hold water. The fact still remains that the NDP government campaigned on stopping this pipeline at all costs. Obtaining legal opinion after the fact does not change the song you sang. Your intent remains the same. Outside of fear mongering and miss information the government of BC has no leg to stand on. Walk the talk before you talk sounds appropriate. Perhaps it’s time Canadians sued the BC government for their own transgressions of environmental destruction. I’m sure those very whales are suffering from the noise pollution from the vastly expanding tourist industries and blatant dumping of human waste long before a non existent oil spill. Dreaming up Armageddon scenarios while committing environmental atrocities does not remove the BC government from liability.